Agenda [1]

1) Announcements

1. FTF for Evaluation and Repair Tools working group in
Amsterdam
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2000/05/agenda

2.Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Electronic and Information
Technology Accessibility Standards by the United States ARCHITECTURAL AND
TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD Comments will be accepted until May
30th http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/nprm.htm
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/overview.htm

JG: If you have comments, consider drafting comments or coordinate with the
W3C Team.

2) Review of Action items

2.CMN: Send a proposal to the list related to a note for Checkpoint 2.1
clarifying UI verses API access
Done.

3.DA: Review techniques for Guidelines 7 and 8
Status: Not done.

4.DB: Get Tim Lacy to review G+

TL: I haven't looked at them lately. I'll try to review before the meeting.

5.DB: Review techniques for Guidelines 3, 4, and 11
Status: Have read through them, will send comments to the list.

6.DP: Review techniques for Guidelines 1 and 2
Status: Will send editorial comments to the list

7.GR: Look into which checkpoints would benefit from audio examples in the
techniques document.
Status: Looking for software that works. I've made some requests for leads but
haven't found anything yet. I may try to work on something in Princeton.

HB: Get samples of digital talking book work at Princeton.

8.GR: Review techniques for Sections 3.7 and 3.8
Status: Not done.

9.MQ: Review techniques for Guidelines 9 and 10
Status: Not done. I have a hard time finding things. Discussion

3) Proposed Rec update.

IJ: Still getting reviews. No substantial comments yet.

4) Face-to-face meeting information.

http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/04/ua-meeting-rfbd.html

JG: 10 people have registered.

JG: We'll have a bridge for the meeting. Tim, Mark, Denis, Jim Allan have
requested a telephone connection.

KB: I'll sit in with Mark.

DP: I want to call as well.

IJ: That means the entire bridge will be full. There are only six slots and
the WG will need one.

IJ: The bridge will be available from 10am ET to 5pm ET Monday and for the
whole meeting on Tuesday.

The number to call (the "Mystic" bridge) is +1-617-252-1859.

/* Discussion of speaker quality */

DB: If there's a problem, Microsoft will be willing to rent necessary
equipment.

JG: Agenda items?

IJ: From the PR, one comment - people want us to track support for the
Guidelines.

Furthermore, the WCAG WG would like the UA WG to take over support for the
UA Support page.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/Resources/WAI-UA-Support

6) Issue PR#207: Interpretation checkpoint 2.1

IJ: JG has made a point that making regular content available is not an
accessibility issue: everyone suffers, not just users with disabilities.

IJ: So: all alternatives that can be recognized by the UA must be available
through the UI.

DA: If you render content natively, you must render it accessibly.

TL: Another problem with source view: for large documents, doesn't show you
all content.

JG: The critical piece of 2.1 is that alt equivalents be available through
the UI. I don't think anything else would be lost.

Resolved: - Add a note to 2.1 that a source view, while
useful, does not meet the requirements of 2.1. - It does not satisfy 8.6
("outline view") either.

DA: In fact, the outline view is supposed to reduce signal-to-noise ratio,
which is increased by a source view. (Ian reminds himself for the record that
the content/ui division in G1 needs to be fixed. Action Ian: Fix this.)

Topic : Definition of content.

IJ: "Source view" is for viewing the document source. I think that
we need a definition of "document source". (Refer to Note at W3C for
Note about Terminology for the Web: the source is what you get as a result of a
request). It's what the client gets.

IJ: In DOM1, content generated by style sheets not in tree. This may change
in DOM 3.

JG: MS's implementation of the DOM today gives this information...

TL: It's even more complicated than source/dom/rendered: you have
server-side scripts that may or may not have an effect on the source.

IJ: If you define "content" to be what's meant for humans, then
checkpoint 2.1 stays the same: it's what's meant for humans (primary or
alternative content).

CMN: I don't like this. At the meeting, I thought we decided we would not
require that everything that is human readable be available through the UI.

IJ: Why is this an accessibility issue?

If the information is not meant for anyone, why does it need to be available
for accessibility?

GR: It's an authoring issue.

IJ: How do you know what will be useful to users if it's not specified as
being useful to humans? E.g., some URIs may be useful and others not, but
you're not supposed to rely on the text of a URI to get information...

JG: How many people think that what CMN is talking about was intended by 2.1
as written in the Proposed Rec? (Source information is important, not just
content meant to be rendered, since it could provide access).

CMN: Three weeks ago the WG rejected the idea of making explicit what needed
to be rendered through the UI.

JG: I don't think the WG understood the implications of 2.1 when it was
discussed. When Phill asked about a source view, I woke up because I didn't
think that 2.1 was about document source.

CMN: I have no disagreement that alt content needs to be available through
the UI and that for that content, the source view was not satisfactory.

CMN: The only content that must be available through the user interface is
what is meant for humans.

IJ: Summary of what I've understood: - Consensus that all information meant
for humans be available through the UI. - Current 2.1 does not require that. -
CMN considers that information meant for machines can make information more
accessible. - UA Guidelines does not require a source view. J

G: Do people think we need a checkpoint that states that alternative content
must be available through the UI?

Consensus: It must be available.

IJ: I just want to note that the above consensus may cause a change to the
spec.

DP: If you don't render audio but there is an equivalent, you need to render
it.

JG: If you don't tell anbody there is audio available, do you have to
render an alternative equivalent for a user with a disability?